What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to decide the issues on merit. The limitation for the e-filed appeal was to be considered from the date of the manual filing.

The assessee filed a manual appeal which was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) for not being in the prescribed e-filing format. The assessee later e-filed an appeal and sought to have its limitation considered from the date of the manual filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of the appeal in limine by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the limitation for the e-filed appeal should be counted from the date of the manual filing.

Smt. Neelam Kaur, Mohali vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘SMD’, CHANDIGARH

Before: MS. DIVA SINGH & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate

Hearing: 07.05.2018Pronounced: 09.05

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘SMD’, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 178/CHD/2018 Assessment year: 2013-14 Smt.Neelam Kaur, Vs. The ITO, #2125, Phase-VII, Ward 6(2), Mohali. Mohali. PAN No. : AKIPK8620L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Respondent by: Smt.Sukhwinder Sharma, Addl. CIT

Date of hearing : 07.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05. 2018

ORDER PER DIVA SINGH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 29.12.2017 of CIT(A)-2 Chandigarh pertaining to 2013-14 assessment year on various grounds. 2. However, at the time of hearing, ld. AR advanced arguments only in ground No. 1 and 2 with the prayer to remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A). The grounds read as under : 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal in limine which is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in electronic form in the correct perspective which forced the assessee to file the appeal in manual form which was well within the limitation period of filing and as such the dismissal of appeal is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.27,53,076/- on account of long term capital gains which is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee filed a manual appeal on 13.04.2016 assailing the additions made in the order dated 17.03.2016 of the AO passed u/s 143(3). The ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine holding that the manual appeal filed was not in the prescribed e-filing format as prescribed by Notification No. SO 637(E) [No. 11/2016 (F.No. 149/150/2015-TPL) dated 01.03.2016 of CBDT.

ITA 178/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 2

It was his submission that firstly the CIT(A) gave no opportunity to the assessee to address the said shortcoming if any and infact completed the hearing and kept the assessee's written submissions on record. 5. The assessee, accordingly, had no occasion to address the shortcoming, if any noticed by the CIT(A). Apart from that, it was his submission that in para 3.7 of his order, the CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that the assessee has e-filed its return on 13.04.2016 vide acknowledgement No. 765176541030913. The said fact, it was his submission is incorrect as no such appeal had been e-filed by the assessee. The assessee had no occasion to address this mistake as the CIT(A) failed to confront this alleged fact to the assessee who was waiting for the decision on merits of the appeal, as it had been fully argued. 6. It was his submission that only on the receipt of the impugned order, the assessee e-filed an appeal on 10.02.2018 on becoming aware of the alleged shortcoming. The said appeal, it was submitted, is pending adjudication. Copy of the Acknowledgement Number 392609241100218 dated 10.02.2018 was filed. 7. Accordingly, it was his limited prayer that his manual appeal having been filed on time which was dismissed in-limine on incorrect facts may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) directing the said authority to treat his e-filed appeal on 10.02.2018 as a compliance to the Rules treating it to be within time taking the limitation as per the manual appeal filed on 13.04.2016 which has been dismissed by the CIT(A) without affording an opportunity of being heard, the same may be consolidated and decided on merit. 8. The ld. Sr.DR on considering the order and the copy of the e-filed appeal had no objection if for the limitation of the e-filed appeal on 10.02.2018 is read from the manually filing of the appeal on 13.04.2016 as taken note of by the CIT(A) in para 3.1 of the present order. 9. Accordingly, in the light of the submissions of the parties before the Bench, impugned order is set aside and the CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues raised on merit. The limitation, it is clarified in case of any doubt shall be read from 13.04.2016 i.e. the date of manual filing of the appeal which position has been accepted by the Sr.DR also. Accordingly, for the reasons given hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with

ITA 178/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 3

law after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09. 05.2018.

Sd/- Sd/-

(ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

‘Poonam’ Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR Asstt. Registrar ITAT Chandigarh

SMT. NEELAM KAUR,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(2), MOHALI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments